Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. vs C.C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 20, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36302

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/36302
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Aug 20, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shamvik Glasstech Ltd.

Respondent

C.C. Ex.

Excerpt

.....of this notice states - "10. from the foregoing para if is evident that the 'assessee' have deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact of availment of modvat credit on spares, mandatory spars, air compressors and shrink wrapping machines on which they did not carry out any manufacturing activity and were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products with an interest to evade central excise duty by incorrectly availing modvat credit on these goods, which were subsequently cleared without payment of central excise duty or reversing the modvat credit availed on these goods." "as regards the question of limitation, i find that the assessee had filed their declaration under rule 57g of central excise rules, 1944 claiming that spares / mandatory spares are inputs for manufacture of final product glass having machines. they, themselves, have admitted that they are not used in the manufacture of final products. thus, it is evident that they withheld material information knowingly with an interest to evade duty. so, the extended period is correctly invoked." c) the appellants contend that the so called admission made by them as arrived by the adjudicator was in statement recorded immediately after the detection by the officers and the legal positions thereon has not been given in detail. the said admission was made out of compulsion and that should not have been relied. this submission has force along with the plea of a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that the credit was available to them therefore they made the declarations. the submission on how the base of 6 months limitations was not applicable in the facts as matter requires a denovo decision by the adjudicators since he has only relied upon the admissions made, which are being retracted. the matter is therefore required to be remitted to the commissioner to re-hear the issue on the question of time bar and thereafter quantify the demands and penalty if any.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides in this matter. The learned Advocate fairly concedes that Rectification of Mistake application allowed on 14.1.04 specifically re-listed this matter to hear and decide the plea of limitation only and he does not press on merits of eligibility of credit which has been held against them.

a) Period of demand is August 91 to June 92 and show cause notice was issued on 27/3/95 and para 10 of this notice states - "10. From the foregoing para if is evident that the 'assessee' have deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact of availment of modvat credit on spares, mandatory spars, air compressors and shrink wrapping machines on which they did not carry out any manufacturing activity and were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products with an interest to evade Central Excise duty by incorrectly availing modvat credit on these goods, which were subsequently cleared without payment of Central Excise duty or reversing the modvat credit availed on these goods." "As regards the question of limitation, I find that the assessee had filed their declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 claiming that spares / Mandatory spares are inputs for manufacture of final product glass having machines. They, themselves, have admitted that they are not used in the manufacture of final products. Thus, it is evident that they withheld material information knowingly with an interest to evade duty. So, the extended period is correctly invoked." c) The appellants contend that the so called admission made by them as arrived by the adjudicator was in statement recorded immediately after the detection by the officers and the legal positions thereon has not been given in detail. The said admission was made out of compulsion and that should not have been relied. This submission has force along with the plea of a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that the credit was available to them therefore they made the declarations. The submission on how the base of 6 months limitations was not applicable in the facts as matter requires a denovo decision by the adjudicators since he has only relied upon the admissions made, which are being retracted. The matter is therefore required to be remitted to the Commissioner to re-hear the issue on the question of time bar and thereafter quantify the demands and penalty if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. vs C.C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu